Kandola v Google LLC (No 2) [2021] FCA 1412

Kandola v Google LLC (No 2) [2021] FCA 1412

The Court was satisfied on the evidence that the prospective applicants may have a right to relief in defamation, had made reasonable enquiries to ascertain the identity of the reviewers, and that Google LLC was likely to have the identifying information or documents needed to ascertain the identity of 'John S' and 'Frank H'; accordingly preliminary discovery orders were warranted under r 7.22(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Application Against Google LLC Heard After Service Out of Jurisdiction; First Prospective Respondent Did Not Appear; Orders Made
Outcome
Application for preliminary discovery against Google LLC granted; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'identification of Prospective Respondent' 'service Out of Jurisdiction' 'online Reviews' 'google Search and Map Reviews']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'identification of Prospective Respondent' 'service Out of Jurisdiction' 'online Reviews' 'google Search and Map Reviews']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Application Against Google LLC Heard After Service Out of Jurisdiction; First Prospective Respondent Did Not Appear; Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prospective applicants may have a right to obtain relief by way of defamation proceedings against the unidentified authors of online reviews.' 'Whether the prospective applicants were unable, despite reasonable enquiries and steps, to ascertain the description or identity of the prospective respondents.' 'Whether Google LLC knows or is likely to know the description of the unidentified reviewers, or has or is likely to have control of documents that would help ascertain that description.' 'Whether orders should be made for service of the orders and reasons on Google LLC in the United States by international registered post and email.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied on the evidence that the prospective applicants may have a right to relief in defamation, had made reasonable enquiries to ascertain the identity of the reviewers, and that Google LLC was likely to have the identifying information or documents needed to ascertain the identity of 'John S' and 'Frank H'; accordingly preliminary discovery orders were warranted under r 7.22(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Application for preliminary discovery against Google LLC granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["Google LLC shall, as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 15 days of being served with the order by email in accordance with order 2, provide to the prospective applicants by email the specified subscriber and identifying information, to the extent available, in relation to the Google Search and...